A guy isn't as replaceable at the trade deadline as he is during free agency. If you need a depth guy who can kill penalties and win faceoffs in the playoffs and there aren't a lot of teams willing to part with a guy like that you could get somewhat of an overpayment.

I do think getting a 2nd out of Glendening is wishful thinking, though.

Click to expand...

the second round pick is the problem, though. Yeah, I don't really doubt we could pull a 4th for him. A 2nd, though, and you're probably looking at hauling in something for further up the lineup. Look at it this way, would we have been happy at any point during our contending years to have dealt a second round pick for a fourth line PKer? I don't think so.

Stop crying.
A guy like Turgeon is supposed to take Glendening's place.
That's exactly who I'd use to replace him.

If you get a good return for Luke Glendening, you ship him out.

There's also a good chance Glendening's body breaks down by the end of his year, with his game, and at his age.
So waiting to trade him comes with risks.

Click to expand...

Wait, what?

1) Glendening is so mediocre that Dominic Turgeon as a rookie can replace him.
2) Luke Glendening's body is going to break down at the end of this year (completely unsupported nonsense, btw, he's only been in the league 5 years, tops, and he doesn't play an Eric Lindros level physical game or anything)
3) At his age... of 28.
4) He's on a contract that you whine and whine about him being overpaid at 1.8 for 3 more seasons.

But somehow, he's going to return a 2nd?

The best return you get for Luke Glendening if you offer him around the league is probably a deal akin to the Sheahan one. Him + 5th for other 4th liner + 3rd. Or he's treated as a sweetner in a much bigger deal where you send Mantha somewhere.

He is 100% completely replaceable and teams don't part with good assets for completely replaceable players... especially those with term. If he were a pure rental? Maybe you can trick someone into a 3rd at the deadline for him. With term at 1.8M for a fourth liner? He's going to be PKing in Detroit for the term of that deal.

1) Glendening is so mediocre that Dominic Turgeon as a rookie can replace him.
2) Luke Glendening's body is going to break down at the end of this year (completely unsupported nonsense, btw, he's only been in the league 5 years, tops, and he doesn't play an Eric Lindros level physical game or anything)
3) At his age... of 28.
4) He's on a contract that you whine and whine about him being overpaid at 1.8 for 3 more seasons.

But somehow, he's going to return a 2nd?

The best return you get for Luke Glendening if you offer him around the league is probably a deal akin to the Sheahan one. Him + 5th for other 4th liner + 3rd. Or he's treated as a sweetner in a much bigger deal where you send Mantha somewhere.

He is 100% completely replaceable and teams don't part with good assets for completely replaceable players... especially those with term. If he were a pure rental? Maybe you can trick someone into a 3rd at the deadline for him. With term at 1.8M for a fourth liner? He's going to be PKing in Detroit for the term of that deal.

Click to expand...

Get real, would you?
I didn't say Turgeon was as good as Glendening in that role today.
But that's Turgeon's expected role. Maybe Turgeon outgrows the role and becomes a 3C.

But we're a rebuilding team.
I have no issue trading away a 28 year old and replacing him with a 21 year old.

Glendening is 3rd in the NHL in faceoffs. That has value.
Glendening is winning more than 59 percent of his faceoffs.

In 2011-12, Nashville traded a 1st rounder to get Paul Gaustad - a defensive center and faceoff expert who won a little more than 56 percent of his faceoffs.
Gaustad was bigger than Glendening. He had been, historically, a bit more productive than Glendening. But he also played more minutes.

In the year he was traded he had 7-10-17 in 56 games.
This year Glendening has 7-5-12 in 36 games.

Gaustad, by the way, made $2.3M - or 4.03 percent of the cap hit on the day his four-year deal was signed.
Glendening's contract was worth 2.47 percent of the cap hit on the day his four-year deal was signed.

Now, it's true that Gaustad was about to be a UFA and Glendening isnt.
But Nasvhille went and signed Gaustad to a four-year deal with 5.42 percent of the cap hit.

So I'm giving you precedent for Glendening's trade value at his contract value.

Get real, would you?
I didn't say Turgeon was as good as Glendening in that role today.
But that's Turgeon's expected role. Maybe Turgeon outgrows the role and becomes a 3C.

But we're a rebuilding team.
I have no issue trading away a 28 year old and replacing him with a 21 year old.

Glendening is 3rd in the NHL in faceoffs. That has value.
Glendening is winning more than 59 percent of his faceoffs.

In 2011-12, Nashville traded a 1st rounder to get Paul Gaustad - a defensive center and faceoff expert who won a little more than 56 percent of his faceoffs.
Gaustad was bigger than Glendening. He had been, historically, a bit more productive than Glendening. But he also played more minutes.

In the year he was traded he had 7-10-17 in 56 games.
This year Glendening has 7-5-12 in 36 games.

Gaustad, by the way, made $2.3M - or 4.03 percent of the cap hit on the day his four-year deal was signed.
Glendening's contract was worth 2.47 percent of the cap hit on the day his four-year deal was signed.

Now, it's true that Gaustad was about to be a UFA and Glendening isnt.
But Nasvhille went and signed Gaustad to a four-year deal with 5.42 percent of the cap hit.

So I'm giving you precedent for Glendening's trade value at his contract value.

Gaustad was used almost exclusively as a defensive forward. He was routinely more productive than Glendening given remotely equivalent zone starts (like those he had in Buffalo) and in his last couple years in Nashville is about on par with Glenny's offensive production while sporting an 11% offensive zone start rate. Zone starts don't mean anything by themselves, necessarily, but it is clear that Nashville had no inclination to let Gaustad join the rush for fun.

Gaustad had 6 inches and 30 pounds on Glendening. That's enough for a team to be able to convince themselves to up a deal.

Gaustad's offseason signing is irrelevant to the trade value. If Nashville hated him, they could have walked away. That increases his value. Glenny would be locked in a new place for 3 years. If term for replaceable fourth liners is a nonfactor, why is a contract like Helm's so reviled? Why do people hate Matt Martin's deal? Why were people so angry when Drew Miller got a couple 2 year, 1M deals when we could have just signed a rookie for 600k. Hell, just think how angry you would have been if David Legwand wasn't a rental, but rather had 3 years at a similar cap hit to Glenny.

Gaustad was used almost exclusively as a defensive forward. He was routinely more productive than Glendening given remotely equivalent zone starts (like those he had in Buffalo) and in his last couple years in Nashville is about on par with Glenny's offensive production while sporting an 11% offensive zone start rate. Zone starts don't mean anything by themselves, necessarily, but it is clear that Nashville had no inclination to let Gaustad join the rush for fun.

Gaustad had 6 inches and 30 pounds on Glendening. That's enough for a team to be able to convince themselves to up a deal.

Gaustad's offseason signing is irrelevant to the trade value. If Nashville hated him, they could have walked away. That increases his value. Glenny would be locked in a new place for 3 years. If term for replaceable fourth liners is a nonfactor, why is a contract like Helm's so reviled? Why do people hate Matt Martin's deal? Why were people so angry when Drew Miller got a couple 2 year, 1M deals when we could have just signed a rookie for 600k. Hell, just think how angry you would have been if David Legwand wasn't a rental, but rather had 3 years at a similar cap hit to Glenny.

Click to expand...

I'm going to ignore your ugly snark and focus on the facts which you've either misunderstood or misrepresented.

Glendening has often been used extensively as a d-zone guy.
This year that has changed at times because of his play with Nielsen.
Over the last 4 seasons -- only ONE NHL PLAYER has started more in the defensive zone than Glendening. That's dominic Moore.

WHen I extend that back to 2008, you start to see Gaustad in the picture.
Gaustad ranks fourth. Glendening ranks ninth.

So essentially, they have the same role.

And no, you can't ignore Gaustad resigning with Nashville.
It goes to show the team not only valued up at 4 percent of the cap hit. They gave him a race, even accounting for cap inflation, to 5 percent of the cap hit.

So -
Glendening makes 2.5 percent of the cap.
He plays in the same role as Gaustad.
Gaustad made 4.06 percent of the cap.
While smaller, he still manages to win more faceoffs.
Gaustad has a higher points/60 1.22 vs 0.99
Gaustad had a slightly higher CF% - 46.84 to 45.04
Gaustad had a higher GF% 47.2 to 44.76

So Gaustad is better.
But Guastad made more money.
And the ask - a 20 to 30 pick vs a 50-60 pick - for Glendening is much lower.

Luke is on a cheap contract and plays his role well. He's one of the few guys on the team that I am not worried about. If we can get an upgraded version of him, great. No need to shop him. He would get a 5th round pick at best as a return.

Luke is on a cheap contract and plays his role well. He's one of the few guys on the team that I am not worried about. If we can get an upgraded version of him, great. No need to shop him. He would get a 5th round pick at best as a return.

Click to expand...

I think that's one of the biggest factors with Glendening. He's one of the few players on this team (if not the only) not on an ELC that actually performs and contributes to the level expected for his salary/role.

He's only 28 and he's good at his assigned role. The argument that he's going to "break down" or will be too old "when the team is good again" is silly. The last real dedicated "shutdown" bottom 6 center the RW had was Kris Draper, who put up 50-55% of his career goals and points in 5 seasons he played between his 30th and 36th birthdays. Obviously not every "grinding type" forward is going to carve out a career like Kris Drapers, but they aren't all going to turn out like Darren Helm (who started piling up injuries at around 25, the same age range Glendening was when he was breaking into the league) either.

Is there an unwritten rule to rebuilding that says you need to move every possible player over the age of 27 for assets that may or (more likely) won't replace that player someday? If so, why didn't the Leafs move Komarov (who was referred to as a replaceable 4th liner in this thread) for whatever return possible when Shanahan decided to scorch the earth?

If we're using potential future "break down" and/or age the player might be when the "Red Wings are good again", why are we then still arguing to keep Mrazek around? The last two homegrown starting goalies this team developed started piling up injuries around the age of 27/28. Mrazek is about to turn 26, so they might as well get something for him before he possibly becomes broken down and injury prone when the team is good again...

===

Back on the topic of Glendenings value... IMO, it's a crapshoot to compare to previous trades and deadlines.

In the Gaustad trade, Nashville also got a 4th rounder with him for the 1st they sent out. So we don't exactly know what he might have been worth by himself. Maybe a 2nd or a 3rd+?

And as far as last years deadline prices, we're talking about draft picks for a draft that had long been speculated would be a snooze fest compared to what is supposed to be a deep one this summer. So it's entirely possible that last years 2nd round pick is closer to this years 3rd, 3rd to 4th etc. etc. That's one of the main arguments given for Green potentially returning less than a 1st this year.

It isn't like Glendening is vastly overpaid (if at all) and he doesn't have some looming NTC. He's on pace for a career year this season, why get rid of him now when he could potentially improve and get a better return in one of the next three seasons? Or is it because he's hit that "28 year expiration date" where less than elite Red Wings players are seen as suddenly having no hope of ever being any better than they are now? Is that the precise moment it goes from "selling low" to "selling high"?

Given Glendening's cost control and effective play for his role, at this point I'd only move him if the return simply can't be passed up. I mean I'm talking "Forsberg for Erat" type overpayment.

It isn't like Glendening is vastly overpaid (if at all) and he doesn't have some looming NTC. He's on pace for a career year this season, why get rid of him now when he could potentially improve and get a better return in one of the next three seasons? Or is it because he's hit that "28 year expiration date" where less than elite Red Wings players are seen as suddenly having no hope of ever being any better than they are now? Is that the precise moment it goes from "selling low" to "selling high"?

Given Glendening's cost control and effective play for his role, at this point I'd only move him if the return simply can't be passed up. I mean I'm talking "Forsberg for Erat" type overpayment.

Click to expand...

That might be the reason we should be shopping him, though. Yeah, maybe he'll improve next season, or this is what it could very well be - the most productive season of his career. Consider the number of vet forwards we'll be returning, the possibility of adding a couple of higher end forward prospects next season (Rasmussen, Svech, etc.) and it wouldn't be surprising to see Glendening's ice time see a hit.

I've already gone on record that I doubt we get offered anything to really make the trade worthy of being done, but it's not a bad time to shop him.

If there is an offer for him that seems fairly good, take it. It just opens up more time for the kids and glendening won't be around in a few years when we turn it around, Throw another dart in the draft board, might get lucky.

Bryan Boyle traded to Tampa, last year, for a 2nd round pick.
(Better offense, worse defense, worse faceoffs, better size).
Jurco traded to Chicago for a 3rd.
Stalberg for a 3rd
Eaves for a conditional 2nd
Vanek for a 3rd
Lazar (and scrub) for2nd and Jokipakka

Click to expand...

I like that you posted comparables to a degree, so props on that. But correct me if I'm wrong, those contracts were all non committal....right? If those player didnt work out, they were either UFA or RFA, so really not the same. I would love to trade Glendenning for a 2nd as I think 1.8 is too much for a 4th liner when we are ALSO paying guys like Helm/Abby/Nielsen what we are paying them, Hopefully we just trade Helm.

Splitting hairs aside, I do agree with ”if we get a good offer trade him”. I just don’t think GMs everywhere would line up to spend 1st or 2nd round picks on Glenny if Green, Nyquist, Zuccarello, Mcdonagh, Vanek, Hoffman, and many others are available. Glendening is someone you likely need to actively shop in order to find the best return. We have others that Holland’s time is better spent shopping currently.

Click to expand...

We saw last year that an offensively skilled Vanek only brought back a third.
There are some saying Green will only bring back a 2nd.

Defensive guys -- role player guys - coaches' player guys -- these are the guys that often draw big interest at a trade deadline.

Some team looking at it's 4C position and thinking it's a weakness... or some team tired of their 47 percent faceoff guy on the PK...
That's the kind of team Glendening can help.

i don't understand why would you trade the guy who brings you energy ,your #1 PK , your best faceoff man , has only 1 point less than 1st line winger . Every game he brings hard work and dedication for his job . I believe he is great model for kids .

i don't understand why would you trade the guy who brings you energy ,your #1 PK , your best faceoff man , has only 1 point less than 1st line winger . Every game he brings hard work and dedication for his job . I believe he is great model for kids .

i don't understand why would you trade the guy who brings you energy ,your #1 PK , your best faceoff man , has only 1 point less than 1st line winger . Every game he brings hard work and dedication for his job . I believe he is great model for kids .

Click to expand...

It all depends on the return. I think you have to consider trading any player when you are re-building if the return is worth it. Would I trade Luke for a 7th...no. Would I trade him for a 1st....100%!

i don't understand why would you trade the guy who brings you energy ,your #1 PK , your best faceoff man , has only 1 point less than 1st line winger . Every game he brings hard work and dedication for his job . I believe he is great model for kids .

Click to expand...

As it's been said, it all depends on the return. Some team wants to overpay? Yeah, you move him. Some team only offering "fair" value? Eh, hang onto him. We have bigger fish to trade for "fair" value.